How can players get to a slam final and still have glaring, horrid weaknesses?

In the women's final, we learned that Li Na has a poor swing volley, a dodgy overhead, and no ability to handle a moonball or to hit moonballs to her opponent. She hit about two shots the entire match that were not hard flat groundies (she hit a successful drop shot early), and then she was done with that idea.

In the men's final (and Murray/Ferrer semi), we learned that Murray cannot hit a running FH. I figured Djokovic's team would see this and that would be the entire game plan. I was actually surprised that Djokovic didn't exploit this glaring deficiency more than he did, and he exploited it plenty.

I don't get it. How can it be that a player cannot handle something (e.g. moonball) that you see routinely even as a junior player? How can it be that Murray cannot hit a solid running FH when most men consider their FH a huge weapon?

andy murray doesn't have a running forehand? of all of murray's flaws, this wouldn't even make the top 10. and playing what would otherwise be a "routine" shot during a deep run at a grand slam tournament is, i imagine, quite different than playing that shot in some junior tournament as a teenager. they both made some errors in their matches but to say they are "glaring, horrid weaknesses" is a glaring, horrid misuse of the phrase, "glaring, horrid weaknesses"

hitting a forehand on a dead run is a pretty low percentage shot, especially at the end of a long rally, as was the case with ferrrer, or when you're under extreme pressure as was the case with djokovic, but i agree that murray's forehand is a weakness, and djokovic's level of tennis during the final didn't help matters much. but "glaring" and "horrid"? eh. it's not great, but he has a lot of other weapons to make up for it. though, that didn't seem to be the case last night. watching murray play in that final made me want to strangle a unicorn. and then andy murray. and then myself for staying up til 3 am to watch the match

andy murray doesn't have a running forehand? of all of murray's flaws, this wouldn't even make the top 10. and playing what would otherwise be a "routine" shot during a deep run at a grand slam tournament is, i imagine, quite different than playing that shot in some junior tournament as a teenager. they both made some errors in their matches but to say they are "glaring, horrid weaknesses" is a glaring, horrid misuse of the phrase, "glaring, horrid weaknesses"

Click to expand...

Agreed^^
Murray's FH is just fine. The average number of balls hit during rallies in the final was ridiculous. To say that Murray's FH is a glaring, horrid weakness is completely false.

If it's so bad, how did he hit a 39 shot rally in last nights final? And also, How is he one of the best returners in the game? How is he considered a defensive player,when defensive players rely on their consistent off-balance groundstrokes to keep them in the points?

In the women's final, we learned that Li Na has a poor swing volley, a dodgy overhead, and no ability to handle a moonball or to hit moonballs to her opponent. She hit about two shots the entire match that were not hard flat groundies (she hit a successful drop shot early), and then she was done with that idea.

In the men's final (and Murray/Ferrer semi), we learned that Murray cannot hit a running FH. I figured Djokovic's team would see this and that would be the entire game plan. I was actually surprised that Djokovic didn't exploit this glaring deficiency more than he did, and he exploited it plenty.

I don't get it. How can it be that a player cannot handle something (e.g. moonball) that you see routinely even as a junior player? How can it be that Murray cannot hit a solid running FH when most men consider their FH a huge weapon?

Click to expand...

After 10,000 posts you would think you'd have learned something about tennis.

In the women's final, we learned that Li Na has a poor swing volley, a dodgy overhead, and no ability to handle a moonball or to hit moonballs to her opponent. She hit about two shots the entire match that were not hard flat groundies (she hit a successful drop shot early), and then she was done with that idea.

In the men's final (and Murray/Ferrer semi), we learned that Murray cannot hit a running FH. I figured Djokovic's team would see this and that would be the entire game plan. I was actually surprised that Djokovic didn't exploit this glaring deficiency more than he did, and he exploited it plenty.

I don't get it.How can it be that a player cannot handle something (e.g. moonball) that you see routinely even as a junior player? How can it be that Murray cannot hit a solid running FH when most men consider their FH a huge weapon?

In the women's final, we learned that Li Na has a poor swing volley, a dodgy overhead, and no ability to handle a moonball or to hit moonballs to her opponent. She hit about two shots the entire match that were not hard flat groundies (she hit a successful drop shot early), and then she was done with that idea.

In the men's final (and Murray/Ferrer semi), we learned that Murray cannot hit a running FH. I figured Djokovic's team would see this and that would be the entire game plan. I was actually surprised that Djokovic didn't exploit this glaring deficiency more than he did, and he exploited it plenty.

I don't get it. How can it be that a player cannot handle something (e.g. moonball) that you see routinely even as a junior player? How can it be that Murray cannot hit a solid running FH when most men consider their FH a huge weapon?

Click to expand...

1) That is the women's game today, you can get away with alot of holes in your game. That is why people give women tennis players so much flak for demanding equal pay when they produce a totally inferior product to men.

2) Your understanding of the game is obviously limited. Murray's running forehand is not the problem, it is his ability to consistently hit a powerful and penetrating shot.

3) A pro level moonball is alot different and alot tougher to handle, especially if you are Li Na's size. Why don't you try dealing with Clijster's moonball and see how you fair?

It's not that Murray's forehand is a weakness, it is just weak enough for an elite level opponent like Djokovic, Federer, Nadal, etc. to exploit it. It's just like how as much flak people give Roddick for his "poor" groundstrokes and volleys, he still could crap all over the majority (as in, everyone below top 100) of the players in the world without his serve.

In the women's final, we learned that Li Na has a poor swing volley, a dodgy overhead, and no ability to handle a moonball or to hit moonballs to her opponent. She hit about two shots the entire match that were not hard flat groundies (she hit a successful drop shot early), and then she was done with that idea.

In the men's final (and Murray/Ferrer semi), we learned that Murray cannot hit a running FH. I figured Djokovic's team would see this and that would be the entire game plan. I was actually surprised that Djokovic didn't exploit this glaring deficiency more than he did, and he exploited it plenty.

I don't get it. How can it be that a player cannot handle something (e.g. moonball) that you see routinely even as a junior player? How can it be that Murray cannot hit a solid running FH when most men consider their FH a huge weapon?

Click to expand...

Cindy, I'll try to give you a reasonable answer here. As for Li Na, women players these days almost never come to the net and so they don't really need solid overheads (I'm still surprised about how many are missed by men and women pros). Same with swinging volleys, although no one NEEDS a swinging volley - people played for 100 years without it - unfortunately a lot of pros don't even have good regular volleys.
As far as the moonballs, they certainly aren't a staple of play like they used to be so they aren't seen that often. However, as a flat hitter a moonball is a tough shot. It is risky to try and take it on the rise (though a pro should be able to do that), and if she moves back, she has to hit a really good shot to not let Clijsters get the advantage in the point. She can't just loop it back like they do in juniors because the opponent is too good and will take advantage.
As far as Murray's CC forehand, it is a good shot and is an excellent shot when he is in decent position. It is his favorite passing shot. It is something that can be attacked when the opponent is good enough, though. Generally, his speed allows him to be in good position most of the time. Djokovic was able to hit well enough to move him around and put him in bad positions. Also, he just was off the last few days. Everyone has times when their game or a particular shot goes off.

In the men's final (and Murray/Ferrer semi), we learned that Murray cannot hit a running FH. I figured Djokovic's team would see this and that would be the entire game plan. I was actually surprised that Djokovic didn't exploit this glaring deficiency more than he did..

Click to expand...

Are you being serious?. Murray has a great running forehand - and he showed it in the match. It's one of his most reliable shots hitting a running forehand crosscourt.

What he completely sucks at his hitting his forehand down the line. Is that what you meant?

Commentators even mentioned it a few times when Murray tried to go down the line and even said "oh, he finally made one!" at one point.

Djokovic clearly knows this and camped out in the crosscourt corner waiting for the Murray forehand which, predictably, went there on all but a few occasions. Djokovic was almost baiting Murray to try to go down the line.

NamRanger's point above about Nadal/Federer/Djokovic being able to exploit it is a good one. I'd add to it that Murray's forehand was particularly affected by the slow court/ball conditions. It didn't zing like it would on many other courts.

1) That is the women's game today, you can get away with alot of holes in your game. That is why people give women tennis players so much flak for demanding equal pay when they produce a totally inferior product to men.

2) Your understanding of the game is obviously limited. Murray's running forehand is not the problem, it is his ability to consistently hit a powerful and penetrating shot.

3) A pro level moonball is alot different and alot tougher to handle, especially if you are Li Na's size. Why don't you try dealing with Clijster's moonball and see how you fair?

It's not that Murray's forehand is a weakness, it is just weak enough for an elite level opponent like Djokovic, Federer, Nadal, etc. to exploit it. It's just like how as much flak people give Roddick for his "poor" groundstrokes and volleys, he still could crap all over the majority (as in, everyone below top 100) of the players in the world without his serve.

the thing low level players don't realize is that even a "horrid weakness" at the pro level (which murray's forehand on the run is surely not) is hard to attack consistently given the pace of the game.

you do have a point about li na though cindy. but in women's tennis during this era you don't need variety to win. you just need to hit relatively hard and deep and draw the error.

poor cindy, you were dead on about the li na comment (which is why no one jumped on you for that) but then you said the murray running forehand.

it is in fact one of his best shots. i didn't watch enough of his final to see it's effectiveness cause it was a slaughter, but you have to consider, it is the final, there's a lot of pressure on murray, and it's the FINAL, he's tired, especially after the long match against ferrer.

Murray seems to have mental issues in Slam finals. I can see how his forehand would look like a horrid liability, because it *is* his worst shot, at least compared to his peers - for everyone else it's a weapon, whereas he's worked hard just to make it an acceptable high-level shot.

But I don't think Murray has it as a "glaring weakness." It's certainly not a strength - the fact that he finds it so hard to dictate with his forehand is certainly up there among his biggest technical limitations - but it only looks "glaring" or "horrid" because the rest of his game is so good. Just think about what you said for a second. His "running forehand" is a deficiency. Basically, you're saying that his forehand breaks down when he's not in good position. However, Murray's got great speed and court positioning - it's not a "glaring" weakness because to exploit it, you first have to get Murray out of position and off-balance! And given how good his defense is, that's not easy.

Ha! Because Li Na can't do anything but hit groundstrokes at the net, the entire womens game is screwed up? That's ridiculous.

It's no different than the baseliner dominated mens game. Agassi and Courier hit volleys line 12 year olds; awkwardly. Tennis isn't about volleying and the transition game anymore. That left mens and womens tennis 20 years ago. There will always be a few who can still volley and transition for the net well. But thanks to Agassi the full swing forehand volley rules mens and womens tennis now, with only a few exceptions.

poor cindy, you were dead on about the li na comment (which is why no one jumped on you for that) but then you said the murray running forehand.

it is in fact one of his best shots. i didn't watch enough of his final to see it's effectiveness cause it was a slaughter, but you have to consider, it is the final, there's a lot of pressure on murray, and it's the FINAL, he's tired, especially after the long match against ferrer.

Click to expand...

Yup. You NaLi'd it.
Lit's Na GuyForzhay that CindySpanked the first half like a red-headed stepchild at a family reunion.

But as for Muzzer's running forehand, maybe she was comparing him to the great Pete Sampras?
Probably just forzhaying your points about the pressure and fatigue involved.....or if I may add, the desperation and the sMothering at play.

His running forehand is deceptive and usually very well placed. But I agree, in the last two matches, it wasn't up to ToP.Sampdards.

Pete's running FH went through the court like a hipster through a trust fund.

Well its a relief to know there is a genius among us to take the edge off. Why don't you say something intelligent? At this point you are a moot point in this discussion. You need to say something more impressive than you have so far to keep from sounding like a juvenile.

In the women's final, we learned that Li Na has a poor swing volley, a dodgy overhead, and no ability to handle a moonball or to hit moonballs to her opponent. She hit about two shots the entire match that were not hard flat groundies (she hit a successful drop shot early), and then she was done with that idea.

In the men's final (and Murray/Ferrer semi), we learned that Murray cannot hit a running FH. I figured Djokovic's team would see this and that would be the entire game plan. I was actually surprised that Djokovic didn't exploit this glaring deficiency more than he did, and he exploited it plenty.

I don't get it. How can it be that a player cannot handle something (e.g. moonball) that you see routinely even as a junior player? How can it be that Murray cannot hit a solid running FH when most men consider their FH a huge weapon?

Click to expand...

...re Murray, I think his running forehand is pretty reasonable, he just wasn't there mentally in the final (which seems to be an issue for him, and not just in finals...he didn't act like he really even wanted to be on the court when he lost at last year's US Open). Nole played a great match, too. He played great against Roger and kept the level up in the final, a great overall tournament for him. When somebody's playing so well that they can smother the opponent, which happens, even in Grand Slams, it tends to make the loser look like he or she doesn't belong on the court, which...might be the case for that match, but probably isn't generally true.

Re Li Na, you're right, on one level, which that she has a relatively straightforward, inflexible power game that has some deficiencies. But she still made a Grand Slam final, and played a great match to beat Caroline in the semis. I'm a big fan of having all the shots and using a lot of variety, but there are lots of players who have a strong, albeit "limited" game, but still win matches and tournaments. I could say that most, if not all of today's ATP and WTA players are pretty deficient because I suspect that a lot of them really can't S&V all that well...but if you have a "limited" game where everything you do have is solid and strong...and you win Grand Slams (or even reach the finals) I still think you're a great player...